What do you guys make of this new T-Mag article???

Q: What is Methyl 1-test? Is it potent? Is it legally sold as a supplement or what? I'm so confused!

A: First, Methyl 1-Test isnít even proper nomenclature. As for it being potent, Counsell, et al., found that C-17 alkylation of 17B-hydroxy-5a-androst-1-en-3-one (also incorrectly referred to as 1-Testosterone) decreased anabolic and androgenic activity in bioassays. It had about one-fourth the anabolic potency of Testosterone propionate and about half the androgenic activity.

The androgen found in MAG-10, 5a-androst-1-ene (1-Testosterone), was shown to be as androgenic as Testosterone propionate but had twice the anabolic activity. So, in reality, with this so-called methyl-1-Testosterone, you're getting the potential liver toxicity while getting much less benefit.

I think people were excited when they first heard of it as they thought, "Oh, okay, well alkylating 1-Testosterone will solve the problem of oral bioavailability and thus we'll have one kick-ass compound." In reality, adding that methyl group creates not just a methylated version of the androgen, but an entirely different molecule, period!

People need to understand that adding a methyl group or a double bond (or really any number of functional groups and atoms) creates an entirely different androgen. For instance, methandrostenolone (D-bol) only differs from Testosterone by a methyl group at the C-17 and an additional double bond between the C-1 and C-2. But can you honestly say D-bol and Testosterone impart the same effects? Even disregarding bioassays, which have demonstrated substantial differences between the two androgens, itís still obvious to anyone whoís used them.

Alterations such as these and others in a steroid ring system can easily change the shape or the way in which the steroid molecule interacts with a given receptor, thus we get drastically different effects. Once and for all, will people please understand that a methyl group at the C-17 creates an entirely new androgen and is different from 17 beta-esterifcation as those esters are generally cleaved prior to systemic circulation, whereas the methyl group canít be cleaved via the esterase enzyme!

As for its legality, I wouldnít think it would be legal. As far as Iíve always been told, C-17 alkylation isn't something our laws allow in terms of a legal steroid supplement. When I visited the various sites selling this product, it became clear that it likely isnít legal. Every disclaimer stated that the product was for "research purposes only" and intended for animals, not humans.

They stated in no uncertain terms that if you buy and use the product they aren't liable as they're assuming youíre a licensed researcher using the compound on animals. Iím guessing people think that by claiming this "for research purposes only" theyíll evade the law. Well, unless the people who are buying this product have a DEA license to possess such materials, it's technically illegal. You can claim youíre a "researcher" all you want but without a DEA license, or a very close friend who has one, you donít have much of a case.

I canít see this stuff being around for long. Even if it is legal, this is most certainly not something our government agencies would look too highly upon, and in general it makes everyone else in the industry look bad.

The worst part is that itís actually less potent than the parent steroid molecule! So, letís see, you get all of these drawbacks and less benefit as compared to the parent molecule. Doesnít make much sense to me. Itís lowlifes who bring out products like this that give the entire supplement industry a bad name. (15)

I think it's a plug for Mag-10... probably due to a drop in it's sales.

Originally posted by scotty2 Nice to see you here, Luke, where ya been? BTW, I think this article is posted somewhere else in here, horse**** marketing ploy.

hey big man... I read plenty of forums... I just got tired of posting much, I'm alot more busy as of late... plus the constant automated replies in my inbox were getting annoying

however, some things need to be brought to peoples' attention every once in a while [above]. T-Mag has some decent articles, but it seems to me more and more of it is becoming a marketing scheme for Biotest.

Hmm... Yeah, methyl-1-test sucks. That's why after only a few days of being on it I can tell such a huge difference... Or go and read every other m-1-t cycle log there is out there and read the results people have had on it. He needs to reference some studies or something to back up what he's saying or he'll just end up sounding like a dick.. Oops, too late.

<TD id=QUOTE><!--QuoteEBegin-->"As for it being potent, Counsell, et al., found that C-17 alkylation of 17B-hydroxy-5a-androst-1-en-3-one (also incorrectly referred to as 1-Testosterone) decreased anabolic and androgenic activity in bioassays. It had about one-fourth the anabolic potency of Testosterone propionate and about half the androgenic activity." <!--QuoteEnd--></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SPAN class=postcolor><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Well, this, for starters, Is just patently untrue. I have my Vida book right here in front of me. If anything, at the very least, he has it <I>backwards</I>: 17aa-1-Testosterone would be at least 4 <I>times </I>as anabolic as <I>research-grade </I>testosterone propionate. (you can reference this on the statistics for 'M-1-T' on the chart from pg. 211 if you have the book)

<!--QuoteBegin--></SPAN>

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="95%" align=center border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD><B></B></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD id=QUOTE><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The androgen found in MAG-10, 5a-androst-1-ene (1-Testosterone), was shown to be as androgenic as Testosterone propionate but had twice the anabolic activity. So, in reality, with this so-called methyl-1-Testosterone, you're getting the potential liver toxicity while getting much less benefit."<!--QuoteEnd--></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SPAN class=postcolor><!--QuoteEEnd-->

He should know better than this. FIrst off, since his comparison isn't even taking bioavailability into account at all for the three compounds he's cross-contrasting, that seems like kind of a skewed statement. Not to mention the basic fact that--as I've mentioned above-- his figures for 17aa-1-Test are just plain off. He's correct about the liver toxicity-- I'm sure its hepatoxicity <I>is</I> far greater, but it's also far more anabolic than he's willing to give it credit for being. Although I didn't originally think so, I'm starting to be convinced that he is correct about the methylation inherently altering the compound (and producing a different androgen), so I'm willing to grant him the middle. However, his basic premise, that <!--QuoteBegin--></SPAN>

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="95%" align=center border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD id=QUOTE><!--QuoteEBegin-->"the worst part is that itís actually less potent than the parent steroid molecule! So, letís see, you get all of these drawbacks and less benefit as compared to the parent molecule."<!--QuoteEnd--></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<SPAN class=postcolor><!--QuoteEEnd--></SPAN>

<SPAN class=postcolor>is quite simply, untrue. If anyone here ever wins the lottery and has a few bucks to burn, I would love to see them take him up on this contention and run a cycle of Mag-10, go through PCT, and then run a cycle of 17aa-1-Test. Irregardless of what he claims, I strongly doubt anyone would be dissapointed with that second cycle and/or be unable to clearly see a difference. <!--emo&--><IMG style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle" alt=wink.gif src="http://forum.avantlabs.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif" border=0><!--endemo--> </SPAN>

It appears that Cy doesn't read a single web forum, but rather sat down and spewed out some technical blahblah that he thought made sense. Personally, I could give four ****s where the double bond is and how the rectomacula ecto-nutrical-plasm bonds with the ****-stink-pootical molecule. Point is, the **** gets you LARGE. Proof is in the pudding. And by pudding I mean 'message boards'.

I've been reading testosterone mag almost since it's inception and I always took their advice with a pretty solid trust in what they were talking about. They did come out w/Mag 10 back in the day(what, 2001 ??) and it was ok....then that whole bunch of b.s. they started w/the Myostatin inhibitiors...right that was going to work, you can file that one right along with boron and smilax(sublingual, of course). Hell, they shut up about Myostat a long time ago, even they had to know it wasn't gonna do what it claimed.

They have taken a turn for the worse and although I used to look forward to their weekly mag and their paper edition mag, now I take their advice w/a grain of salt and I just skip over the parts where they constantly plug their products.

They were getting ****(in their reader mail section) from guys that said they wanted to see more articles about gear in their magazine, so what do they do? They put out an article bashing the one new compound that seems to be blowing away their most expensive supplement, Mag 10.

Mag 10 is way overpriced, they even put some aas vets on it on the meso board awhile back. Yes they did make gains, but over long periods of time and with much higher dosages....they got it for free though, and that would cost the normal consumer alot of money. Money that could be used to pretty serious aas cycles instead.

Anyway, this just goes to show you, once again, of what the guys over there are doing.....offering up their product as a better alternative. Alot of test.net readers aren't into the PH/AAS scene, and many of them are loyal to biotest just like EAS used to have it's following. IMO, greed is just taking over on that site.

T- mag went to **** after poliquin left and they came out with mag-10. Someone pointed out that the first thing listed in m-10 is 4-ad, so there has to be more 4-ad than 1-test. A 40 day supply of Mag-10 would cost around 400. A 40 day supply of methyl-1-test cost 80.00 if you do 2 a day. I would put money on it that no one sent that letter in to them and that it was a ghost letter. What they are so stupid to realize is that methyl-1 test is getting some pretty good feedback and seems to be the best of the prohormones. They are killing thier own credibilty if there is any of it left after myocrap.

There is a thread on here somewhere, but here's what I remember............ Boston decided that he needed a trainer with him constantly and Poliquin couldn't make a commitment like that. He referred Boston to someone else (can't remember name) and that guy is the one who is with him day and night for $200k a year.

Poliquin referred David Boston to someone else.It's posted here some where. The guy gives him "an IV of minerals". Any way it sounds pretty weird. I have always gotten good results using his training methods. I wonder what happened to him and t-mag. I always looked forward to reading his articles. He must have got sick of their **** or something. Every once and awhile they will have some good training info with Dave Tate or Ian king but it turned into a giant advertisement for expensive biotest crap.